Highlighting the Terrorist Threat Works Again for President Bush

By Brigitte L. Nacos

After President George W. Bush highlighted the continued terrorist threat in a series of speeches before and on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, his public approval increased in the polls of the major survey organizations to the by far highest level since February. While this approval spike was mostly the result of a jump in presidential support among Republicans, it confirmed research findings that I described in an earlier post (“Mass-Mediated Terror Threats Intimidate the Public”): In the post-9/11 years, such actual terrorist threat assessments or warnings and the media coverage thereof increase the public’s fear of future terrorism on American soil and bolster the President’s approval. Perhaps more important for the upcoming off-year elections: The latest “going public” campaign by President Bush (and perhaps Vice President Cheney’s efforts as well) lifted the public’s confidence in the Republican Party’s handling of terrorism.

Before the latest polls were conducted, it was far from clear that the latest presidential statements on terrorism would once again move public opinion. Research by political scientists Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro found that only mass-mediated messages by popular presidents with approval ratings above 50% increase the public’s preferences for presidential policies. And President Bush’s approval was significantly below that threshold, when he began his latest campaign to focus on the threat of terrorism. It seems that terrorism as a major problem of the country transcends the mold of other policy dilemmas and continues to cast the President in an especially strong position to lead public opinion. 

When it comes to terrorism and the “war” against it, many questions are not asked and others are not answered. For example, according to the White House, one proof of the administration’s effective counterterrorist measures is the fact that there has not been a terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11. Well, there was no terror attack inside U.S.borders during the five years before 9/11 either. Would that attest to the Clinton administration’s effective counterterrorist policies?

In view of the latest poll results, there is no doubt that the White House and Republican candidates will continue to emphasize the terrorist threat and the “war on terrorism” as the most important issues throughout this fall’s campaign. And why wouldn’t they? Two years ago, President Bush won reelection with the same argument that he and his party make now: Republicans are tough on terrorism, Democrats are soft on terrorism. While the history of the last 25 years tells another story (see my post of June 21^st, “Truth Twisters’ Myth about Parties Being Soft and Tough on Terrorism” in this site’s archive), the Democratic Party has not set the record straight nor found a strong voice and compelling message to highlight the dire problems created in the name of the “war on terrorism.”